This article was downloaded by: [University of Tennessee, Knoxville]On: 19 December 2014, At: 19:39Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rere20

Developing a Second Life virtual fieldtrip for university students: an actionresearch approachShane Mathews a , Lynda Andrews a & Edwina Luck aa School of Advertising, Marketing and Public Relations , QUTBusiness School, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane ,Queensland , AustraliaPublished online: 05 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: Shane Mathews , Lynda Andrews & Edwina Luck (2012) Developing a SecondLife virtual field trip for university students: an action research approach, Educational Research,54:1, 17-38, DOI: 10.1080/00131881.2012.658197

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2012.658197

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Developing a Second Life virtual field trip for university students:

an action research approach

Shane Mathews*, Lynda Andrews and Edwina Luck

School of Advertising, Marketing and Public Relations, QUT Business School,Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

(Received 24 May 2011; resubmitted 14 September 2011; final version received 28 November2011)

Background: Integrating 3D virtual world technologies into educational subjectscontinues to draw the attention of educators and researchers alike. The focus ofthis study is the use of a virtual world, Second Life, in higher education teaching.In particular, it explores the potential of using a virtual world experience as alearning component situated within a curriculum delivered predominantlythrough face-to-face teaching methods.Purpose: This paper reports on a research study into the development of a virtualworld learning experience designed for marketing students taking a Digital Pro-motions course. The experience was a field trip into Second Life to allow studentsto investigate how business branding practices were used for product promotion inthis virtual world environment. The paper discusses the issues involved indeveloping and refining the virtual course component over four semesters.Methods: The study used a pedagogical action research approach, with iterativecycles of development, intervention and evaluation over four semesters. The dataanalysed were quantitative and qualitative student feedback collected after eachfield trip as well as lecturer reflections on each cycle.Sample: Small-scale convenience samples of second- and third-year studentsstudying in a Bachelor of Business degree, majoring in marketing, taking theDigital Promotions subject at a metropolitan university in Queensland, Australiaparticipated in the study. The samples included students who had and had notexperienced the field trip. The numbers of students taking part in the field tripranged from 22 to 48 across the four semesters.Findings and Implications: The findings from the four iterations of the actionresearch plan helped identify key considerations for incorporating technologiesinto learning environments. Feedback and reflections from the students andlecturer suggested that an innovative learning opportunity had been developed.However, pedagogical potential was limited, in part, by technological difficultiesand by student perceptions of relevance.

Keywords: Second Life; higher education; marketing curriculum; pedagogicalaction research; virtual worlds

Introduction

One of the challenges put forward by The New Media Consortium’s Horizon Report(Johnson, Levine, and Smith 2008, 3) pertaining to higher education over the coming

*Corresponding author. Email: sw.mathews@qut.edu.au

Educational Research

Vol. 54, No. 1, March 2012, 17–38

ISSN 0013-1881 print/ISSN 1469-5847 online

� 2012 NFER

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2012.658197

http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

39 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

years is ‘a need to provide formal instruction in information, visual, andtechnological literacy as well as in how to create meaningful content with today’stools’. A related challenge identified in academic literature calls for developing‘pedagogically innovative and quality practices for technology-enhanced education’(e.g. Kankaanranta 2004, 1; cited in Kankaanranta 2005; Kozma 2003) For manyeducators, this challenge is more often being addressed at the undergraduate level(Dalgarno et al. 2011) where the cohort is likely to be more technologically aware.

Wood, Solomon, and Allan (2008) suggest that the ‘Millennial Generation’, i.e.those aged 16–24, will be the ones who place the most pressure on educators toreconsider how they deliver education curricula. It has been argued that studentsconsidered Millennials process information differently, have been more immersed intechnologies during their life and have a strong need for interactivity, having spentmore time playing complex and participatory video games than studying or reading(Drea, Trip, and Stunkel 2005). They are highly receptive to technology-basedpedagogical experiences (Ferrell and Ferrel 2002) and they thrive in onlineenvironments (Childress and Braswell 2006). Particularly at undergraduate level,educators can expect their students to be highly engaged with a whole range of Web2.0 technologies such as Facebook, blogs, Myspace, YouTube (Wood et al. 2008).

This is not to imply that ‘the Millenials’ have a different learning style per se, butit is likely that they may have certain expectations regarding the integration of thesenew technologies into learning experiences at university. It is further noted thatalthough new technologies continually become available for teaching in highereducation, changes to educational practices respond more slowly (Schneckenberg,Ehlers and Adelsberger 2011).

In terms of the use of virtual worlds in higher education, research does indeedsuggest that they can be incorporated into pedagogical practices in curricula,although doing so may challenge ‘traditional pedagogic relationships’ betweeneducator and students (Twining 2011). Thus, they can provide students withmeaningful educational experiences that enhance their learning (e.g. Dalgarno et al.2011, Kirriemuir 2011), while at the same time improving their technological literacyskills (e.g. Campbell 2009; Daniels Lee 2009). It is arguably important, therefore,that educators consider what place these new technologies have in their coursecurriculum. Moreover, they need to understand the extent to which using suchtechnologies will add pedagogical value to their learning and teaching practices toachieve positive student outcomes (Kankaanranta 2005).

Background: virtual worlds in higher education teaching and learning

Second Life (SL) is an immersive virtual world or 3D graphical environment, and foreducators, is possibly the most preferred and widely used platform (Dalgarno et al.2011; Kirriemuir 2011). Developed by Linden Labs, users can access SL through theWeb for no cost, as the software is free to download. Users create an avatar, acomputer-generated persona of themselves (Childs 2010), that represents both theirpresence in SL and their identity (Dickey 2003). It also acts as the ‘camera’ (Dickey2003, 107) or eyes of the user to view the 3D virtual environment. Avatars have arange of mobility functions that permits walking, flying and teleporting to simulatedenvironments in SL where they can engage in numerous types of activities.

The issue of integrating virtual worlds such as SL into higher education teachingand learning is the subject of research (e.g. Dalgarno et al. 2011; Jarmon et al. 2009,

18 S. Mathews et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

39 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Kirremuir 2011). What follows is an examination of selected research to illustratehow the potential of SL has been explored and evaluated as a tool for augmentingthe subject curriculum and providing additional learning experiences for the students(e.g. Alrayes and Sutcliffe 2011; Campbell 2009; Daniels Lee 2009; Yule,McNamara, and Thomas 2009).

Daniels Lee (2009) used SL in the delivery of an MBA level OperationsManagement subject. Students were required to learn the key objectives of thesubject curriculum through a project that required them to locate and research avirtual business in SL. Student outcomes involved the experience of learning aboutoperations management through their selected virtual business and by makingcomparisons with real world businesses (Daniels Lee 2009, 11). An additionaloutcome for the students was exposure to a 3D virtual world Internet technology:SL. Most of the students indicated that, since virtual worlds are part of the future, itwas important that they were exposed to them. Daniels Lee (2009, 11) reported that,in general, students found the project worthwhile although many were ‘not surewhether it belonged in an operations management class’. Although she does notelaborate on this comment, she reports that students also said that the project wastime consuming and, at times, they were confused about how to proceed with theactivities expected. Moreover, from her own observations, Daniels Lee found thatsome students were more fully engaged in learning about operations management inSL, whereas others did not put in the time. As a result, the students’ quality ofresearch undertaken for the project was quite varied (Daniels Lee 2009, 11–12),which may have a connection with why many students said the project did notbelong in an operations management course.

Alrayes and Sutcliffe (2011, 5) discuss the use of SL for their Business TeamProject module, with the main learning objectives focused around practisingcollaborative groupwork. Evaluation of students’ experiences of the SL-basedproject suggested mixed responses. On the one hand, the SL experience rated low forlearning outcomes, less motivation or interest in using SL and poor ratings for theeffectiveness of SL for learning (Alrayes and Sutcliffe 2011). On the other hand,students rated SL more positively in terms of improving collaboration andappreciated its inclusion in the module. Despite overall good results at the end ofthe module, students still did not recommend the use of SL in any learning activity(Alrayes and Sutcliffe 2011, 12).

Campbell (2009) investigated student teachers’ responses to, and perceived usa-bility of, virtual worlds for teaching practice. The objective was to provide final yearEducation students with the appropriate skills necessary to engage critically andpurposefully with new technologies, in this case SL, to enhance their teaching capa-bilities in preparation for moving out into the workforce. Student evaluations of theSL activity suggest that they felt it provided them with important experiences regard-ing the use of virtual world technologies for teaching purposes. However, only aquarter of participants indicated that they would consider using SL, specifically theTeen Life1 environment of SL, in their actual teaching, citing security concerns foryoung students as the main reason (Campbell 2009, 12). The teaching and learningoutcomes, however, suggest that students engaged in and created highly relevanteducational activities in SL, thus achieving the goals of the course (Campbell 2009, 14).

SL has also been used in Law courses for developing students’ mooting skills(Yule, McNamara, and Thomas 2009). Students were required to practice theirmooting skills in a virtual law court custom built by a Law faculty for this activity.

Educational Research 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

39 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

However, evaluations through focus groups suggested that SL did not assist thestudents to develop their mooting skills, primarily based around a number oflimitations related to avatar capabilities, e.g. facial expressions and gestures/bodystances. They also reported a lack of engagement in the mooting exercise and thatthe effort involved preparing for mooting in SL was not worth the effort (Yule,McNamara, and Thomas 2009).

Nonetheless, the literature also suggests that using virtual worlds can provideadditional benefits for students’ educational learning experiences. For example,within SL, students can feel ‘a sense of personal presence and tangible experiences’that enhances learning (Jarmon et al. 2009, 5), which may be too difficult or toocostly to replicate in the real world (White and Le Cornu 2010). Virtual worldenvironments can also enhance students’ engagement in a course through a sense ofshared experiences (Jarmon et al. 2009, 5) such as groupwork in Alrayes and Sutcliffe(2011). Additionally, students can experience a sense of ‘belonging in’ the virtualworld and ‘belonging to’ the social group (White and Le Cornu 2010, 186). They areable to examine user-developed content in the virtual world (Jarmon et al. 2009, 3).It is argued that students experience a stronger understanding of what is possible inthe virtual world through an enriched sense of presence (Jarmon et al. 2009) achievedthrough their own and other students’ avatars, as well as any other people who maybe present in the virtual world at the time of visit. It is also reported that somestudents can see the potential for applications in virtual worlds in their ownprofessional practice after leaving university (e.g. Campbell 2009; Daniels Lee 2009).

The literature discussed above suggests that, whilst there are benefits in the use ofvirtual words in the student learning experiences, there are also drawbacks andsituations where the technology did not appear to enhance learning. Clearly,educators need to ensure that incorporating a virtual world learning environmentinto a course can be justified not just from the subject-discipline perspective, but thatsuch an addition also provides meaningful opportunities for learning. They mustalso be mindful of the time and effort that might be involved for students whenengaging in these experiences (Lim 2009).

Methodological background to the present study

Research on SL in higher education courses involves approaches such as single andmultiple case studies (e.g. Alrayes and Sutcliffe 2011; Campbell 2009; Salmon et al.2010), as well as indicators that cyclical development and improvements forsubsequent offerings would be made, based on student feedback and educatorobservations (e.g. Daniels Lee 2009). Each of the studies, however, provides asnapshot of a single iteration of using SL in educational courses and thus do notdemonstrate how one might develop interventions to improve the offering to achievestronger pedagogical outcomes. As a point of departure from such literature, ourpaper reports on the findings of a four-semester action research study. The studyevaluates the impact of the iterative interventions used with a view to improvingpedagogical learning and teaching outcomes in a virtual world learning context.

Action research

Action research has been used extensively in educational settings at all levels (Norton2009; McNiff, Lomax, and Whitehead 2003; Zuber-Skerritt 1992). Its benefits relate

20 S. Mathews et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

39 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

to the fact that educators can use it as an appropriate and effective way to integrateeducational research and teaching practice (McNiff, Lomax, and Whitehead 2003;Zuber-Skerritt 1992). In the context of this study, it can be defined as ‘research byhigher education teachers themselves into their own teaching practice and intostudent learning’ (Zuber-Skerritt 1992, 88). The value of action research is in ‘itsiterative, reflective and cyclic process of exploration’ of a particular issue of concernto the educator/ researcher, whether this is to simply discover successful methods inteaching practice or as a wider issue in terms of equity and inclusion (Cousins 2009,150). Its acceptance for use across a range of areas in higher education is evident inthe published studies available. For example, Ball (2009) used this method toevaluate annotations on student essays in a United Kingdom university, Nel andWilkinson (2006) used it to examine collaborative learning in a blended learningenvironment, and Singh (2006) made use of it in a study exploring assessment in aSouth African university.

Research design

One reason for undertaking action research is that it systematically investigates theteacher’s own teaching and learning with the aim of modifying practice as well ascontributing to theoretical knowledge (Norton 2009). The action research studyreported in this paper has five identified stages as outlined by Norton (2009). Thesestages are: (1) a problem or issue is identified by the researcher, based on what hasoccurred, or not occurred in their teaching practice; (2) the researcher thinks aboutways to tackle it and develops a plan; (3) the plan is then put into action andspecific evidence is gathered; (4) the evidence is analysed and evaluated; and, (5)the findings are used to modify teaching practice to alleviate the problem or issueidentified.

As noted above, action research is an iterative process, where the evaluation ofthe interventions from the initial plan are then subjected to the research cycle againto determine whether they were successful and how they can be further improved. Asa result, our research started in one semester and continued over a further threesemesters with a view to improving the learning experience, guided by an experientiallearning pedagogy. In essence, experiential learning provides students with theopportunity to experience a particular aspect of their learning, to be able to observeand reflect on that experience and to form abstract concepts based on theirreflections, then apply such knowledge to test new concepts (Kolb and Fry 1975). Itwas also important to achieve pedagogically appropriate practices for thistechnology-enhanced educational experience so that it was integrated appropriatelyfor diverse learners (Kankaanranta 2005).

The present study

The context of the Digital Promotions course

Research evidence presented above suggests a number of pedagogical benefits fromintegrating virtual world environments in some way into teaching and learning. It isthe approach of using virtual words for delivering a portion of the subject curriculum(as exemplified in the research discussed above) that is of particular relevance for thestudy reported in this paper.

Educational Research 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

39 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

The context for the study was the development of a virtual world componentwithin a Digital Promotions course. The course was being taken by second- andthird-year undergraduate students in a Bachelor of Business degree, majoring inmarketing, at an Australian metropolitan university. With the emerging businesspossibilities in virtual worlds, it is important for marketing students to have someunderstanding of this developing marketing environment. In a subject such asDigital Promotions, it is all very well to talk about how companies use SL formarketing and promotional activities, but without actually experiencing how thevirtual world is used for marketing, a deeper understanding and appreciation of thismarketing platform is harder to achieve. The pedagogical issue was the difficulty ofteaching students about a 3D virtual marketing environment using solely traditionalface-to-face teaching methods. Using only traditional methods, it is doubtfulwhether students can really understand and critically evaluate both the consumerexperience and the company perspective of 3D virtual worlds. A face-to-face, in-classapproach is limited, as students are at arm’s length from the actual digital consumerexperiences. This is a significant issue, as within marketing education, students areregularly asked to evaluate these two perspectives.

The use of a virtual world component would seem to offer a potential solution tothis pedagogical difficulty. Specifically, SL has given marketing academics the abilityto develop activities so that students can experience a 3D consumer digitalexperience, then reflect on the brand and marketing implications for the company. Incombination with in-class material and note taking by the students, they would beable to evaluate the marketing opportunities along with the consumer psychologyimplications of the use of a 3D virtual world. An in-world field trip would enablestudents to have this firsthand consumer experience as opposed to an arm’s lengthdiscussion.

The research question to be explored is to what extent it would be possible todevelop a virtual world course component that would be capable of delivering ameaningful and valuable teaching and learning experience for the students.

The virtual ‘field trip’ idea

Thus, a virtual field trip was developed to take students into the Coke Virtual ThirstPavilion, which was, at the time, the Coca-Cola virtual world in SL. The CokePavilion was an exemplar of what brand or marketing experience is achievable in 3Denvironments. The selection of a single site for the trip was determined to assist withmethodological issues. In particular, since an action research approach had beenadopted, the use of the same environment across iterations would allow for a greaterconsistency in teaching and learning evaluations by the lecturer.

The lecturer made some preliminary assumptions about the SL virtual world 3Denvironment as a learning space, based on the literature. For example, it wasassumed that 3D environments are conducive to immersive experiences, especiallyrole playing situations (Slator et al. 1999). As White and Le Cornu (2010, 191–2) alsoidentify, virtual worlds are experiential by nature and educators should useexperiential learning theory to evaluate these spaces in order to analyse teachingpractice.

In the Digital Promotions course, students played the role of a Coca-Colaconsumer as well as manager-observers of Coke’s marketing activity, as this was thefocus for student learning outcomes. In the SL environment, participants can

22 S. Mathews et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

39 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

experience both secondary (technology mediated) learning as well as primaryexperiences of learning (through engagement and carrying out activities). Thiscombination is considered a ‘powerful dimension of using virtual worlds foreducation purposes’ (White and Le Cornu 2010, 192). These two forms of learningwould be used in the SL field trip to permit students to play the dual roles ofmarketer through appreciating the mediated experience, and the consumer throughthe primary or sensual experience of the Coke Virtual Thirst Pavilion. It wasanticipated that the game-like feel would enhance the active role of the student in thelearning process, whereby the level of interaction is heightened (Slator et al. 1999).The Coke Virtual Thirst Pavilion would allow students to experience SL’s game-likeelements through emotive activities, demonstrating how companies create highlyexperiential marketing and promotional activities to engage consumers with thebrand, in ways that would be impossible in the real world.

Study method

University ethics processes and procedures were adhered to and ethics clearancegiven for the study. The recruitment processes and study procedures are discussed inthe following sections.

Participants

Participants were second- and third-year undergraduate students enrolled in amarketing major in the Bachelor of Business, who were taking the DigitalPromotions course at a metropolitan university in Queensland, Australia. Thestudy took place over four semesters, and the sample was composed of differentstudents during each semester of the study. Over the four semesters, a total of 299students took the Digital Promotions course: 95 in semester 1, 77 in semester 2, 66 insemester 3 and 61 in semester 4.

All students enrolled in the course during each semester were invited to participatein the SL field trip. All students were also invited to complete the post-field tripsurvey, regardless of whether they attended the SL field trip or not, primarily becausethe survey contained questions related to Internet usage in general, in addition toquestions relating to the field trip experience in particular. It was also anticipated thatit may be possible to gain insights into how students who did not participate in thefield trip perceived the activity. We acknowledge that they could not provide insightsinto those items that related directly to having experienced the trip. A request forparticipation was emailed out to all students enrolled in the course. An embeddedURL link to the online survey ensured that all data provided was anonymous.

Procedure

The SL field trips were held over four semesters and organised without any majortechnical support of the faculty, primarily because of the lack of technical skillappropriate for this activity. Students could select to attend the field trip in adesignated computer lab at the university or log in from home if they had thenecessary bandwidth and computer power to do so.

As this field trip was an extension activity to the course’s curriculum,participation was voluntary. In the first two semesters of this study, the field trip

Educational Research 23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

39 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

was not assessed. This is common practice: Dalgarno et al. (2011) reports that mostvirtual world educational activities tend not to be compulsory or assessed. Thissuggests that educators may be unwilling to make such activities a core componentof their courses at the present time.

Post-field trip online questionnaire

Course participants were invited to complete a survey after the field trip had takenplace. The questionnaire was in the form of an online survey consisting of 41 items.The first part of the survey asked students about their current usage of Internettechnologies, using a 7-point Likert-type scale with end points of 1 (no use) and 7(extensive use). This was followed by four sections that examined: experiencewith the field trip; perceptions of learning outcomes; attitudes towards the fieldtrip; and, perception of student outcome benefits. Similarly, a 7-point Likert-type scale was used with endpoints of 1 (strongly agree), 4 neutral, 7 (stronglydisagree).

Field trip procedure

The initial virtual field trip experience was organised as follows. A set time, dateand SL location was given to students, together with a brief guide to using SL.Students were free to create their own avatars with no restrictions on appearance.Thus, they could create their own SL identity that need not reflect their real worldpersona. During the virtual field trip, through their Avatar, students interacted withthe Coke brand at the Coke Virtual Thirst Pavilion through activities that wererecommended by the lecturer, in order to experience the possibilities afforded byinteracting with a brand in SL. These activities included dancing, music andcompetitions. In addition, students could pick up a free Coke T-shirt, get a freebubble Coke and experience the cherry cola river, where they were immersed in a3608 stream of cherry cola. They could attempt the Coke penguin puzzles for prizes,as well as engaging in other activities with the penguins, such as fishing, climbingand drinking Coke.

Method for collection and analysis of evaluation data after each semester’s field trip

Evaluation of each field trip involved the collection and analysis of multiple sourcesof data.

1. Lecturer observations and reflections

The first source of evidence was lecturer observations and reflections on the activityand the unanticipated challenges from both a university perspective and technicalissues. These were documented in field notes after the trip was completed.

2. Quantitative feedback from students

In addition, evidence was gathered from the students. Quantitative feedback wasobtained from the online survey. One week after the field trip, all students in thecourse were emailed with an invitation to participate in the survey.

24 S. Mathews et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

39 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

3. Qualitative feedback from students

Qualitative student feedback was obtained from the formal, university-based, onlinecourse evaluation at the end of the semester. In this evaluation, students areencouraged to provide qualitative comments regarding what they liked about acourse and what needs improvement. This end of semester evaluation protectsstudent anonymity and there is no compulsory requirement to complete the survey.These comments are made available to course lecturers after the examination periodeach semester.

Findings

For brevity, the data for all four semesters has been given on each table – however,following the presentation of these tables and some general observations, thefindings are discussed semester by semester in the sections below, with reference tothese tables.

Table 1 summarises the numbers of students enrolled on the course, the numbersof virtual field trip participants and the number of students who completed thequantitative survey.

It is evident from Table 1 that the proportions of students enrolled on the DigitalPromotions course who opted to participate in the field trip rose notably from 23%participation during the first semester to 78% participation during the fourthsemester. It is possible that the higher proportions of students participating duringsemesters 3 and 4 may be accounted for, at least in part, by the decision to make thefield trip an assessed element of the course during semesters 3 and 4.

It is also noteworthy that during semesters 1 and 2, the response rate of field tripparticipants to the online survey was almost 100% (all 22 students who experiencedthe field trip in semester 1 also completed the survey; in semester 2, 26 of the 27students who went on the field trip completed the survey). In contrast, the field tripparticipant response rate for the survey was somewhat lower in semesters 3 and 4:

Table 1. Participation rates in the Digital Promotions course, Second Life (SL) field trip andevaluations over the four semesters.

Time periodSemester

1Semester

2Semester

3Semester

4 Total

Total number of students onDigital Promotions course

95 77 66 61 299

Number of students in course whoparticipated in an SL field trip

22 27 35 48 132

% of students in course whoparticipated in SL field trip

23% 35% 53% 78% N/A

Total number of students on coursewho completed the post tripquantitative survey

56 34 15 34 139

Total number of students on coursewho participated in SL field tripwho completed survey*

22 26 15 34 97

*In semesters 3 and 4, students not participating in field trip did not respond to the survey. Therefore, forsemesters 3 and 4, the number of students on the course who completed the post trip survey are the same asthe number who participated in the SL field trip and completed the survey.

Educational Research 25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

39 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

only 15 of the 35 field trip participants completed the survey in semester 3, and insemester 4, 34 of the 48 participants responded. In the discussion of the quantitativequestionnaire responses below, the small sample sizes must be borne in mind and anydifferences across groups must, therefore, be treated with caution.

The findings for the course students’ familiarity with technology andparticipants’ quantitative responses after experiencing a field trip are summarisedon Tables 2 and 3 respectively.

The responses of students who did not participate in the field trip are given inTable 2, alongside the responses of participants, because these survey questionsrelated to the general use of new media technologies and the Internet. Data for non-participants is only available for semesters 1 and 2, because although the survey wasoffered to them none of the non-participants responded to the survey in semesters 3and 4.

The responses of non-participants are not detailed on Table 3, since this paperfocuses on the experiences of the field trip participants. On Table 3 the numbers ofparticipants who agreed and disagreed to various degrees on the Likert-type scale foreach survey question have been aggregated to produce three response groupings:‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’ and ‘Disagree’.

Findings reported and discussed semester-by-semester

Semester 1

Lecturer observations, and the quantitative and qualitative feedback gathered fromthe first offering of the SL field trip informed the problem statement and theinitiation of the action research as shown in the evidence provided. Of the 95students enrolled on the course, 22 (23%) participated in the SL field trip, as shown

Table 2. Use of new media technologies and the Internet by students who responded to thepost-field trip survey: mean scores.

Semester 1 Semester 2 Semester 3 Semester 4

Digital Promotionsstudents

NP(n ¼ 34)mean

P(n ¼ 22)mean

NP(n ¼ 8)mean

P(n ¼ 26)mean

P(n ¼ 15)mean

P(n ¼ 34)mean

E-mail 6.73 6.95 6.00 6.27 6.40 6.26Company Websites 4.80 5.14 4.44 5.29 4.67 5.12Facebook.com 4.47 4.68 5.22 4.54 4.87 5.55Myspace.com 3.47 2.55 3.22 2.50 2.27 2.12Secondlife.com 1.17 1.95 1.22 1.73 1.47 1.76Youtube.com 4.43 4.14 3.56 4.38 3.60 4.74Search engines 6.87 6.91 6.33 6.77 6.27 6.74Sites for purchasing

product3.57 4.00 2.89 3.50 3.50 4.79

Pay my bills 4.13 4.95 4.44 4.15 3.67 5.47

Note: 1. Mean scores are given for the current student usage of Internet technologies. A 7-point Likert-type scale was used to assess the extent of use of Internet technologies with endpoints of 1 (no use) and 7(extensive use).

2. NP, students who did not participate in the field trip; P, students who did participate in the field trip. Insemesters 3 and 4, students not participating in field trip did not respond to the survey. Therefore, for thesesemesters, data is only presented for Participants.

26 S. Mathews et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

39 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Table 3. Field trip participants’ responses to items on the post-Second Life field tripquestionnaire over four semesters.

Semester1,

P (22)

Semester2,

P (26)

Semester3,

P (15)

Semester4,

P (34)

Construct A N D A N D A N D A N D

Section 1: Experience with fieldtripFun 18 2 2 16 8 2 7 5 3 17 11 6Interesting 19 2 1 20 5 1 12 1 2 24 4 6Appealing 13 6 3 10 8 7* 9 2 4 15 11 8Exciting 12 7 3 9 10 6* 7 4 4 10 12 12Fascinating 17 4 1 13 10 3 7 4 4 14 11 9Highly involving 17 4 1 14 6 6 7 6 2 19 8 7Activity Wanted 11 5 4* 8 8 10 9 2 4 11 16 7

Section 2: Perceptions of learning outcomesImportant 18 1 3 19 5 2 11 1 3 23 6 5Of concern 12 4 6 18 6 2 9 3 3 20 8 6Relevant 17 4 1 19 6 1 12 1 2 27 5 2Means a lot to me 10 7 5 11 9 6 7 4 4 12 12 10Useful 18 4 0 20 4 2 11 2 2 22 11 1Valuable 18 3 1 19 7 0 12 1 2 21 12 1Fundamental 10 6 6 15 8 3 7 5 3 15 14 5

Section 3: Attitude toward fieldtripPositive 18 3 1 21 4 1 12 2 1 23 9 2Pleasant 18 3 1 16 9 1 12 2 1 18 9 7Agreeable 15 7 0 16 8 2 12 2 1 17 15 2Valuable 17 3 2 16 8 2 13 0 2 20 9 5Good 17 4 1 16 9 1 13 1 1 20 12 2Wise 13 6 3 16 10 0 12 2 1 19 12 3Favourable 14 6 2 12 12 2 13 1 1 16 11 7Likes a lot 13 8 1 10 12 4 11 3 1 13 12 9Useful 16 3 3 18 7 1 13 0 2 18 10 6

Section 4: Perception of student outcome benefitsInternet marketingcapabilities

19 3 0 25 1 0 13 0 2 25 1 8

Engagement insubject

20 2 0 22 3 1 10 3 2 22 7 5

Empowering me inthe subject

16 4 2 19 3 4 9 4 2 16 11 7

Motivation toparticipate

18 2 2 17 7 2 9 3 3 23 6 5

Giving me motivationto come to class

17 1 4 13 8 5 7 3 5 22 5 7

Making me proud tobe a part of subject

14 5 3 13 8 5 9 2 4 22 7 5

Beyond normally doin other subjects

14 5 3 19 4 3 8 4 3 24 4 6

Inspiring me to learn 16 3 3 19 7 0 10 2 3 24 3 7More enjoyable learningexperience

20 1 1 23 3 0 13 0 2 25 1 8

A, Agree; N, Neutral; D, Disagree.

Note: the categories marked * do not sum to the total number of participants, because in each case someparticipants did not respond to the item.

Educational Research 27

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

39 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

in Table 1 above. It was evident that this was a small but engaged and interestedgroup of students, who were very forgiving of the relative lack of structure andprecision that characterised this initial offering of the field trip.

Semester 1: Field trip participants’ questionnaire responses. Table 2 shows that the 22semester 1 field trip participants had a relatively low prior experience of using SL.However, the findings related to participating students’ experience with the field triptended to be positive. As can be seen in Table 3, 18 of the 22 participants agreed thatit was ‘fun’ (82%), 19 students agreed it was ‘interesting’ (86%), 17 agreed it was‘fascinating’ (77%) and ‘highly involving’ (77%). These findings suggest that theimmersive aspects of SL were appealing to the participants.

Furthermore, responses related to their perceptions of learning outcomes suggestthat the field trip contributed to student learning outcomes, with 18 of the 22students agreeing that it was ‘important’ (82%) ‘useful’ (82%) and ‘valuable’ (82%).Findings show that the majority of participating students agreed that there wereoutcome benefits. For example, 16 out of 22 students (73%) agreed that the tripinspired them to learn and 20 students (91%) agreed that it resulted in ‘moreengagement’ with the course and a ‘more enjoyable learning experience’.

However, not all the responses were quite so positive. Two of the section 2(Perception of learning outcomes) categories had agreement ratings of below 50%.Specifically, only 10 of the 22 participants (45%) agreed that the activity meant a lotto them’ likewise, the same number agreed that the activity was ‘fundamental’.

Semester 1: Qualitative student responses from formal course evaluation. Positiveresponses to the survey were further reflected in the qualitative comments inthe formal end of semester course evaluation from students who participated in theactivity. The comments suggest that they did see the student outcome benefits,particularly related to the ‘Internet Marketing experiences’ and ‘inspiring them tolearn’, as the following quotations suggest:

Second life online tour was brilliant! Information about now now now!;Awesome idea – Love it;Second life was an interesting experience and showed the potential of the Internet forfuture marketing endeavours;Intriguing.

However, the negative feedback provided insights into what may have reduced thestudents experience in the activity and may have impacted on their responses in thevarious sections of the online survey. For example, it was evident there werecomputer compatibility problems, most likely from those who tried to participatefrom home. The organisation of the field trip needed more attention (instructions,navigation) and there were concerns about social presence while in SL. Moreover,there was evidence of a desire for social inclusion (going into SL as a class, alltogether) as the quotations suggest:

Instructions unclear and difficult to navigate;I got lost from the group when we moved from the meeting point;SL tour needed to be better organised – I got lost and computer wasn’t compatible;I would have loved to be able to go into Second Life as a class, all together;Computer compatibility issues for Second Life.

28 S. Mathews et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

39 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Semester 1: Lecturer observation perspective. From a lecturer observationperspective, while there were positive elements to the field trip, the organisationand implementation of the field trip needed improvement in a number of areas,including technical aspects. For the lecturer, a key problem was the communicationissue during the field trip where it was difficult to respond quickly and effectively to20 students’ instant messaging texts seeking help and further directions. Theseobservations were certainly supported through the qualitative comments and mayalso be reflected in some of the less positive responses to the quantitative survey,particularly related to learning outcomes such as ‘means a lot to me’ and‘fundamental’ (discussed above), where expectations or needs were not being metduring the field trip.

Semester 1: Conclusions and directions for following semesters. These sources ofevidence gave rise to the problem statement guiding the action research plan for thenext offering. The plan was to develop interventions that would improve pedagogicalissues relating to: (1) the added value of incorporating this technological field tripinto the course; and (2) its ability to encourage student participation, therebymeaningfully enhancing more students’ learning experiences and engagement withthe course curriculum.

To this end, the learning objective was identified as enhancing students’ under-standing of how businesses use this virtual environment for marketing, and pro-motional purposes through an immersive experience. The technology objective wasto improve students’ capabilities with using the SL software, facilitating moreeffective participation in the experiential learning components of the field trip. Theintervention strategies and evaluations of these strategies are summarised in Table 4and discussed in more detail for each ensuing semester.

Semester 2

Intervention strategies and implementation.

. A more detailed guide was developed for students on how to use thetechnology, how to prepare and work with their avatar, and where to meetwithin the SL virtual world environment. This guide was placed on the courseBlackboard site and students were advised to read it in preparation for the trip.

. To enhance effective management of student communication issues during thefield trip, the lecturer developed a text document with a list of standardisedresponses relating to the main difficulties that students were likely to encounterduring their initial experiences in the virtual world. These standardisedresponses could then be cut and pasted into the instant messagingcommunication system during the field trip to give students comprehensiveinformation to help them to function.

This semester, of a cohort of 77 students, 27 participated in the field trip,representing 35% of the class. Proportionally, this was an improvement oversemester 1, when only 23% of the cohort participated in the field trip (22 of the 95students in semester 1). Given that the trip remained non-compulsory and was notassessed in semester 2, this was a notable increase in participation.

Educational Research 29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

39 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Table

4.

Summary

offieldtrip

interventionsacross

thefoursemesters.

Sem

ester1

Sem

ester2

Sem

ester3

Sem

ester4

3D

SecondLifefieldtrip:Coke

VirtualThirst

Pavilion.

Voluntary

participation.

Initially,students

participatedin

thefieldtrip

from

theirowncomputers

predominantlyin

theirown

homes.A

settime,

date

and

SLlocationwasgiven

tostudents

withaguide.

No

assessm

entwaslinked

tothe

fieldtrip.

Intervention

3D

SecondLifefieldtrip:Coke

VirtualThirst

Pavilion.

Voluntary

participation.

Students

participatedin

the

fieldtrip

from

theirown

computers

intheirown

homes.Detailed

guide

supplied

asto

how

toget

started.Extravideo

content

aboutSLandbranding

activity.

Intervention

3D

SecondLifefieldtrip:Coke

VirtualThirst

Pavilion.

Voluntary

participation.

Computerlabsintroducedas

anon-campussupport

for

fieldtripsforthose

whodo

nothavecomputers/

powerfulenoughcomputers

athome.

Introductionofan

assessm

entweightedat7.5%

ofthetotalsubject

mark.

Intervention

3D

SecondLifefieldtrip:Coke

VirtualThirst

Pavilion.

Voluntary

participation.

Computerlabswiththe

inclusionofanextra

teacher’said

supported

the

fieldtrips.Twofieldtrips:

fieldtrip

1fororientation

andfieldtrip

2fortheCoke

VirtualThirst

Pavilion

experience.

30 S. Mathews et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

39 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Semester 2: Student questionnaire responses. This semester, of the 27 students whoparticipated in the field trip, all but one student (26 students) completed the onlinequestionnaire. As with the previous semester, there was a low prior use of SLcompared with other new media technologies. Again, participating students for themost part identified the experiential aspects of the field trip, with 20 out of 26students (77%) agreeing that it was ‘interesting’; 19 agreeing that it was ‘relevant’(19: 73%), important (19: 73%), and 20 agreeing that it was ‘useful’ (77%). Twenty-one agreed that they had a positive attitude (81%).

These views were further supported by their agreement that the field trip hadbenefited them in a number of important areas, particularly: their learning anddevelopment of Internet marketing capability (25 students or 96%), theirengagement in the subject (22 students or 85%) and creating a more enjoyablelearning environment (23 students or 88%).

However, only 13 out of the 26 students (50%) agreed that the trip motivatedthem to attend class, and only 10 students (38%) agreed that they liked the field trip‘a lot’. These scores were lower than those from the first semester trip. It is alsonoteworthy that the ‘fun’ factor in the field trip had dropped from 81% (18 out of 22students) in first semester to 62% (16 out of 26 students) in the second semester.

Semester 2: Qualitative student responses from formal course evaluation. In the formalschool-based course valuations, students raised their concerns about technologicalsupport during the SL field trip, as the following quotations suggest:

. . . need a lab for effectively exploring SL;

. . . [need] Uni computer lab dedicated to second life with no cost to student fordownloading.

These comments raise additional issues, this time indicating a desire for universitycomputing facilities to be available for managing the technology underpinning theexperiential learning component in SL. These comments relate to the fact thatsome students were participating from home. A point of interest in the secondcomment is the download concerns. Many universities provide students with aspecified amount of Internet download available outside the institution, althoughtheir downloads at the university do not have such limitations beyond a ‘fair use’policy.

Semester 2: Lecturer observation perspective. Based on personal observations of thefield trip, and to some degree supported in the qualitative findings, the lecturer wasaware that there were still difficulties in co-ordinating the field trip effectively whenstudents were entering SL from remote locations, such as home, despite his beingable to cut and paste instructions in the instant messaging function.

Semester 2: Conclusions and directions for following semesters. In summary, theparticipation rates increased compared with the first semester and student responsesto the survey suggest that the field trip was still providing good pedagogicaloutcomes for these students. However, the technological difficulties were still limitingthe extent to which the field trip could effectively engage students in the curriculum.The drop in the ‘fun’ factor (noted earlier) may be because of the increased amountof student guidance and formal, standardised instructions to prevent problems,

Educational Research 31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

39 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

which to some extent might be reducing the satisfaction felt with the experientialaspect of the trip.

Semester 3

As a result of reflection on the findings from semester 2, the following interventionswere effected:

Intervention strategies and implementation

. As incorporating new media technologies into teaching was one of the strategicdirections for the Faculty, two computer labs on campus were loaded with theSL software and booked to support the fieldtrips for those who did not havethe computer capability in their own home. This intervention was intended tomanage issues for students who previously were in remote locations such as athome, or those students who did not have sufficiently advanced computingtechnology or broadband access. It also addressed the students’ commentsabout the need for technology support by the university.

. In addition to being able to cut and paste standard responses to students whoentered the field trip from remote locations, the lecturer would also use theteaching computer projector system visually to show students what to doduring the trip. This would to help them manage their SL functioning and toprevent them from getting lost during the trip.

. For semester 3, explicit links would be made between the SL fieldtrip andassessment. This included a 7.5% of total mark for the assessment of the 3Dvirtual environment for potential marketing opportunities. This interventionwould address the issue to do with non-participating students’ limitedperceptions of the relevance of the field trip to their learning outcomes andstudent benefits. However, participation in the field trip was still voluntary, sostudents were also provided with additional material, such as lecture contentand discussion, video documentary and other materials such as journals, newscommentary and trade publications to prevent any equity issues in the coursethrough non-participation in the field trip.

In semester 3, 35 out of 66 students (53%) of the class participated, representing aproportional increase compared with the previous two semesters, where participa-tion was at 23% (semester 1) and 35% (semester 2) of the whole cohorts.

Semester 3: Student questionnaire responses. In this semester, while 35 studentsparticipated in the trip, only 15 completed the online survey. Again, findings showthat this cohort had low prior experience with SL. The lecturer felt at this point thatthe fieldtrip was organised more effectively in terms of using the computer labs, andbetter trip management in terms of faster text responses and being able to use thevisual projector to facilitate a smoother experience for students.

However, when they were in SL, the semester 3 participating students whoresponded to the survey did not necessarily agree that the field trip providedgreater perceived learning outcomes when compared with the responses of thesemester 2 participants. It must be borne in mind when making comparisons,though, that whereas all but one of the semester 2 participants responded to the

32 S. Mathews et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

39 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

survey, the responses in semester 3 only represent the views of 15 out of the 35participants.

Perceptions of learning outcomes were, generally, fairly similar to those ofsemester 2. However, in some aspects of ‘perception of student outcome benefits’,positive responses seemed to be in decline across the semesters. For example, in thefirst semester, 91% of students (20 out of 22) agreed that the trip engaged them in thesubject; this fell to 85% (22 out of 26 students) in semester 2 and then 67% (10 out of15 students) in semester 3.

The use of computer labs enabled a larger number of students to take advantageof the experience, meaning that equity of participation was also improving. Inaddition, agreement of the relevance of the SL field trip for the participating studentswas improved from the previous semester: in Semester 3, 80% of students agreed itwas relevant (12 of 15 students) compared with 73% in semester 2 (19 out of 26students). It is possible that this improvement in relevance ratings may have beenbecause of the 7.5% weighting in the mark toward the field trip exercise (but again,the particularly small numbers of respondents to the semester 3 survey must be bornein mind and any differences in response must, therefore, be treated with caution).

Semester 3: Qualitative student responses from formal subject evaluation. The mostsignificant theme of the qualitative response was that students were still finding theSL environment technologically challenging, as the following quotations suggest:

One and a half hours is not enough;. . . more time needed to train on second life.

Semester 3: Lecturer observation perspective. The lecturer observed that even thoughcomputer labs gave greater control of the learning environment, there was a higherproportion of students participating and many of them had no prior experience withSL. This meant that there was a higher number of students who were finding the SLenvironment very difficult to navigate and who required assistance more often. As aresult, the lecturer felt there was a need for an extra facilitator for the class to helpthese students. Additionally, it was observed that students mastered the SLenvironment quickly, meaning that some students were very fast in finishing allactivities where others found the activities very difficult. This disparity createdadditional problems that impacted on the social inclusion experiences for students.

Semester 3: Conclusions and directions for the final semester. Evaluation of semester 3suggested the need for more preparation so that students could master how to walk,fly, teleport and communicate in SL prior to the field trip in order to have a moresatisfying learning experience on the field trip itself.

Semester 4

Intervention and implementation strategies. In addition to retaining the previousinterventions used for semester 2 and three, the following interventions wereincluded for semester 4:

. The use of an extra facilitator to assist with the computer lab sessions. This wasto alleviate the pressure on the lecturer in managing the increasing number ofstudents participating.

Educational Research 33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

39 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

. To conduct the field trip over a two-week period instead of one week, i.e. week1 for the registration and orientation, and week 2 for the field trip. Thisintervention was based on observations regarding the disparity in skills,informal student feedback and comments in the qualitative feedback thatindicated more time was needed, particularly in respect of the training for SL.

Evaluation of the semester 4 field trip. Again, the use of computer labs enabled alarger proportion of students to participate with 48 out of 61 students (78%) goingon the field trip. This represented a higher participation rate compared with theprevious semester.

Semester 4: Student questionnaire responses. The week one orientation SL fieldtripsession went very well. Given that this cohort also had a low prior experience of SL,it was anticipated that the orientation would improve the group’s experiences duringthe actual field trip.

However, while 24 students out of 34 (71%) agreed that the trip was ‘interesting’,the perception of learning outcome scores for ‘useful’ (22 of 34 students or 65%) and‘valuable’ (21 of 34 students or 62%) were somewhat lower than in previousofferings.

Agreement for the items related to attitude towards the field trip was noticeablylow compared with semester 3. However, the motivation items, motivation toparticipate (23 of 34 students: 68%) and motivation to come to class (22 of 34students: 64%) were somewhat higher than the previous semester.

Further, in student lecture discussions, student effort over the two weeksdedicated to the SL field trip were seen as disproportionate to the weighting of theassessment, which was 7.5%. Students indicated that the time and effort spend inlearning how to use the technology and spending two weeks on the project, firstthrough an orientation week and then the interaction with the Coke brand, seemedout of proportion. We believe this was because students knew they could completethe assessment using the additional resources provided in the subject for thosestudents who did not participate. However, agreement with the ‘relevance’ of thefield trip was still high for 27 of the 34 participating students (79%), suggestingacknowledgement of some of the identified student outcome benefits.

However, with so many students now participating, technical issues negativelyimpacted on student experience. This may perhaps connect with the relatively lowagreement ratings in section 3 of Table 3 relating to students’ attitude towards thefield trip, particularly for items such as ‘valuable’ (20 of the 34 students: 59%) anduseful (18 or 53%).

Higher participation rates also meant other technological challenges with usingSL for an experiential field trip, as documented below.

(1) Only 20–25 avatars can be in one space within SL, as the computers will startto freeze (potentially creating a negative experience for the students). Theincreased participation meant that around 50 avatars were involved in thetrip to the Coke Virtual Thirst Pavilion.

(2) The larger number of students participating resulted in a greater disparity inthe Internet technology orientation of students. With 48 students participat-ing, the disparity between technologically skilled and unskilled students hadwidened compared with the previous semester. Further, from observations in

34 S. Mathews et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

39 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

the computer labs, some students found it very frustrating waiting for thosethat were slow and had low technical skill to catch up. Some students foundeven the simplest of tasks in SL difficult, because of their lack of experience insuch environments. Therefore, some students finished their activitiesefficiently with no problems while others struggled to move in SL. Problemssuch as students losing their clothing or hair and being unable to reattachthem, caused distractions from the learning objectives of the field trip. Thesefactors also limited the ability to introduce more sophisticated elements oflearning in SL.

Semester 4: Conclusions and further directions. In this way, the learning cyclecontinues and the lecturer needs to reflect on these new challenges for the SL fieldtrip that now has a much higher participation rate in a potentially unstabletechnological environment. Thus, the field trip has achieved one of the goals it setout to, namely to gain higher participation in an experiential learning activity that isrelevant to the subject being taught. A further goal is to make sure that the using thetechnology will add the necessary value, thereby to enhance the SL field trip’spotential to create a meaningful and highly relevant learning experience for thestudents.

Implications for educators

In this study, the findings suggest that it is a challenging task for educators tointegrate a virtual world technology with an experiential learning pedagogy, despitethe technology’s identified potential to provide rich experiences. Importantly,dealing with technological issues in managing the students’ experiences in the virtualworld should not overshadow the teaching and learning objectives identified for theactivity.

Our findings suggest that not all students are inclined to take part in techno-logically delivered education experiences. Some students clearly did not see the SLfield trip as relevant to their learning, as they did not participate. In the initialofferings of the field trip, this outcome might have been connected to the lack ofassessment associated with it. The assessment related to knowledge of marketing invirtual worlds in semester 3 and four possibly accounts for the increased participationin those two semesters. If there is no assessment attached, a voluntary field trip to SL,regardless of how interesting and experiential it might be, could be considered lessrelevant than other activities that are assessed. As the lecturer became more know-ledgeable with the technology and more confident that it would be stable enough tofacilitate the SL activity, the field trip was integrated into the course assessment.

The outcomes of this action research study highlight the tensions between twopedagogical considerations. On the one hand, the SL field trip created an experientiallearning opportunity that simply could not be replicated in a traditional lecturedelivery. On the other hand, it was true that the challenges of the technology limitedthe value of the experience for many students, both at a technical level because ofsoftware problems, but also from a student technology capability level. This wasparticularly evident in the divide between students who quickly mastered how tofunction in SL, compared with those who did not. Other researchers (e.g. Alrayesand Sutcliffe 2011; Daniels Lee 2009) have noted that not every student puts in thetime to master these skills, which does tend to limit their perceptions of the relevance

Educational Research 35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

39 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

or value of the SL activity in the course. In our study, this discrepancy in studenteffort impacted on the experience for both the skilled students, who had to keepwaiting for others, and for the unskilled students who continually experiencedproblems negotiating the SL environment. However, as Savin-Baden et al. (2010)suggest, educators need an awareness student expectations of direction and guidanceand freedom to develop knowledge independently.

Educators should not make assumptions that just because the students are partof the Millennial Generation (Drea et al. 2005) they will necessarily be familiar withan extensive range of modern technologies, or find them easy to use (Savin-Badenet al. 2010). Thus, educators should not simply assume students will enjoy beingimmersed in a virtual world.

Implications for higher education teaching and learning

It is recognised that many universities are looking at ways to integrate modern tech-nologies into teaching and learning and there is a degree of pressure on educators tolook at ways to do this. Our findings suggest that it should not be assumed that allstudents use every new technology in the same way. Table 2, showing the students’Technology Capabilities suggests that not all students use every new media technologyavailable. For a virtual world environment such as SL, the use rates were extremelylow. As we found in our cycle of offerings, when a virtual world environment wasintroduced into an undergraduate course, which is most often where it occurs (e.g.Dalgarno et al. 2011), it becomes problematic for the educator to manage the skillsand expectations of the students which, in turn, leads to lower levels of satisfactionwith the curriculum and the learning experience. This is particularly evident in the timeand effort to outcome relationship identified in our study and other work.

Additionally, the assumptions that the Millennial Generation is always highlyreceptive to technology-based pedagogical experiences (Ferrell and Ferrell 2002) andthrive in online environments (Childress and Braswell 2006) may not be particularlyaccurate. The premise that the game-like feel in virtual worlds enhances the activerole of the student in the learning process and heightens their interaction (Slatoret al. 1999) could also be debated. Student responses in our study suggest that not allstudents are going to find activities in virtual worlds ‘fun’ and ‘exciting’. Moreover, itcannot be assumed that attempts to engage with students using Web 2.0 technologieswill enhance universities reputations and desirability among prospective students,compared with the more traditional methods of delivery.

Limitations and future research

This study clearly has its limitations: it represents one lecturer’s attempt to use SL in amarketing subject to enhance the learning experience for students on a digitalpromotions course. The sample sizes were small. As participation was voluntary, thedata collected did not reflect the whole of the class’ experience. Additionally, thelecturer felt that dealing with the technological issues possibly overshadowed a focus onimproving the experiential learning component. The findings, while offering insightsinto the pedagogical issues tensions involved, cannot be generalised beyond this study.

However, the study does provide directions for future research and insights into theprocess of iterative course development. Educators who are integrating new mediatechnologies into their course could consider using a pedagogical action research

36 S. Mathews et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

39 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

approach to monitor progress towards the integration of innovative pedagogy into thecurriculum. Professionals might focus more on researching their learning and teachingpractices with a view to sharing their experiences, particularly in areas where a 3Dvirtual world, such as SL, is being used for a specific component of the course, ratherthan for a full immersion experience for the teaching and learning of an entire course(for example, as may be the case in distance education learning).

In conclusion, this exploratory study highlights the necessity of considering thepedagogical issues involved in using technology in education environments to createexperiential learning opportunities for their students. It suggests that educators needto ensure that the pedagogical value of the experience is not overshadowed by thetechnological issues. As noted by Savin-Baden et al. (2010, 131), educators should bemindful of the extent to which the component modalities in a virtual world’senvironment might become the focus of the learning, rather than the educationalobjectives. Most of all, this study emphasises the importance, during coursedevelopment, of retaining sight of the potential pedagogical value of integrating suchtechnology into teaching and learning in order to enhance student outcomes.

Note

1. Teen Life was closed on 31 December 2010 and merged with the main SL grid (Linden2010).

References

Alrayes, A., and A. Sutcliffe. 2011. Student’s attitudes in a virtual environment (Second Life).Journal of Virtual Worlds Research 4, no. 1.

Ball, E. 2009. A participatory action research study on handwritten annotation feedback andits impact on staff and students. System Practices Action Research 22: 111–24.

Campbell, C. 2009. Learning in a different life: Pre-service education students using an onlinevirtual world, Special issue on Pedagogy, Education and Innovation in Virtual Worlds.Journal of Virtual World’s Research 2, no. 1: 4–17. http://journals.tdl.org/jvwr/article/view/379/451 (accessed 23 June 2009).

Childress, M.D., and R. Braswell. 2006. Using massively multiplayer online role-playinggames for online learning. Distance Education 27, no. 2: 187–96.

Childs, M. 2010. A conceptual framework for mediated environments. Educational Research52, no. 2: 197–213.

Cousins, G. 2009. Researching learning in higher education: An introduction to contemporarymethods and approaches. New York: Routledge.

Dalgarno, B., M.J.W. Lee, L. Carlson, S. Gretory, and B. Tynan. 2011. An Australian andNew Zealand scoping study on the use of 3D immersive virtual worlds in higher education.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 27, no. 1: 1–15.

Daniels Lee, P. 2009. Using Second Life to teach operations management in special issue onPedagogy, Education and Innovation in Virtual Worlds. Journal of Virtual World’sResearch 2, no. 1: 3–15 (accessed from http://journals.tdl.org/jvwr/article/view/431/464 on23 June 09).

Dickey, M.D. 2003. Teaching IN 3D: Affordances and constraints of 3D virtual worlds forsynchronous distance learning. Distance Education 24, no. 1: 105–21.

Drea, J.T., C. Trip, and K. Stunkel. 2005. An assessment of the effectiveness of an in-classgame on Marketing students’; Perceptions and learning outcomes. Marketing EducationReview 15, no. 1: 25–33.

Ferrell, O.C., and L. Ferrell. 2002. Assessing Instructional Technology in the Classroom.Marketing Education Review 12 (Fall): 19–24.

Jarmon, L., D.Y.T. Lim, B. Nanyang, and S. Carpenter, II. 2009. Editorial in special issue onPedagogy, Education and Innovation in Virtual Worlds. Journal of Virtual World’sResearch 2, no. 1: 3–9 (accessed from http://journals.tdl.org/jvwr/index on 22 June 2009).

Educational Research 37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

39 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Johnson, L.F., A. Levine, and R.S. Smith. 2008. 2008 Horizon Report. http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2008-Horizon-Report.pdf (accessed in May 2010 from The New Media Consortium,http://www.nmc.org/publications?page¼1).

Kankaanranta, M. 2004. Tietotekniikan opetuskaytto kansainvalisessa vertailussa. [The use ofICT in international comparison]. In Kansainvaliset IEA-tutkimukset Suomi-kuvaa luo-massa, ed. K. Leimu [Picture of Finland reflected in international IEA studies] (pp. 335–58). Jyvaskyla, Finland: Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyvaskyla, citedin Kankaanranta, M. 2005. International perspectives on the pedagogically innovativeuses of technology. Human Technology 1, no. 2: 112–16.

Kankaanranta, M. 2005. International perspectives on the pedagogically innovative uses oftechnology. Human Technology 1, no. 2: 112–16.

Kirriemuir, J. 2011. UK university and college technical support for Second Life developersand users. Educational Research 52, no. 2: 215–27.

Kolb, D.A., and R. Fry. 1975. Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. In Theoriesof group process, ed. C. Cooper. London: John Wiley.

Kozma, R., ed. 2003. Technology, innovation, and educational change. A global perspective.A report of the Second Information Technology in Education Study. Module 2.Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.Accessed through Google Books on 4 September 2011. http://books.google.com.au/books?hl¼en&lr¼&id¼7IWcRIpY3JYC&oi¼fnd&pg¼PA1&dq¼KozmaþRobert&ots¼jATEP4Z5L-&sig¼Hv-az_H-3FO2cKACwLiP-QfmlkE#v¼onepage&q&f¼false

Lim, K.Y.T. 2009. The six learnings of Second Life: A framework for designing curricularinterventions in-world, in special issue on Pedagogy, Education and Innovation in VirtualWorlds. Journal of Virtual World’s Research 2, no. 1: 3–11 (accessed from http://journals.tdl.org/jvwr/index on 22 June 2009).

Linden, T. 2010. The Future of Teens and Second Life (accessed on 4 September 2011through: http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Features/The-Future-of-Teens-and-Second-Life/ba-p/661576).

McNiff, J., P. Lomax, and J. Whitehead. 2003. You and your action research project. 2nd ed.New York: Routledge Falmer.

Nel, L., and A. Wilkinson. 2006. Enhancing collaborative learning in a blended learning envi-ronment: Applying a process planning model. System Practices Action Research 19: 553–76.

Norton, L.S. 2009. Action research in teaching and learning: A practical guide to conductingpedagogical research in universities. London: Routledge.

Salmon, G., M. Nie, and P. Edirisingha. 2010. Developing a fivestage model of learning insecond life. Educational Research 52, no. 2: 169–82.

Savin-Baden, M., L. Gourlay, C. Tombs, N. Steils, G. Tombs, and M. Mawer. 2010. Situatingpedagogies, positions and practices in immersive virtual worlds. Educational Research 52,no. 2: 123–33.

Schneckenberg, D., U. Ehlers, and H. Adelsberger. 2011. Web 2.0 and competence-orienteddesign of learning – Potentials and implications for higher education. British Journal ofEducational Technology 42, no. 5: 747–62.

Singh, P. 2006. Using an action research framework to explore assessment: A south Africancase study. Systemic Practice and Action Research 19, no. 2: 179–87.

Slator, B.P., P. Juell, B. McClean, D. Sainin-Eidukat, A. Schwert, A. White, and C. Hill. 1999.Virtual environments for education. Journal of Network and Computer Applications 22, no.3: 161–74.

Twining, P. 2011. Virtual worlds and education. Educational Research 52, no. 2: 117–22.White, D., and A. Le Cornu. 2010. Eventedness and disjuncture in virtual worlds. Educational

Research 52, no. 2: 183–96.Wood, N.T., M.R. Solomon, and D. Allan. 2008. Welcome to the matrix: E-learning gets a

Second Life. Marketing Education Review 18, no. 2: 47–53.Yule, J.M., J. McNamara, and M.N. Thomas. 2009. Virtual mooting: Using technology to

enhance the mooting experience. Journal of the Australasian Law Teachers Association 2,nos. 1 & 2: 231–43.

Zuber-Skerrit, O. 1992. Action Research in Higher Education: Examples & Reflections.London: Kogan Page Ltd.

38 S. Mathews et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

enne

ssee

, Kno

xvill

e] a

t 19:

39 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014